Re: 3.0?

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 09.01.2014 12:03, schrieb Jan Nieuwenhuizen:
>> Urs Liska writes:
>>
>>> Is there _any_ notion what a LilyPond 3.0 may be?
>>
>> I could imagine that if LilyPond were made into an engraving library,
>> and/or heavy rewiring to make it deeply integrated with a gui,
>
> Hm, this is something I was also thinking about: Of course LilyPond
> itself will never get graphical editing but remains a dedicated
> engraving tool.
> But it would probably make it more attractive for the consumer market
> if it had a nice default GUI.

It's not for the "consumer market" anyway.  Too much thinking.

> I personally would be pleased to see Frescobaldi become such a default
> GUI (of course not cutting out other options).

Frescobaldi is not a GUI but an IDE.  It runs on fewer platforms than
LilyPond.

> Particularly given the prospect of Frescobaldi providing graphical
> editing capabilities soon (and provided we'll get the Mac OSX
> installation sorted out).
>
> Would such a step be _conceptually_ acceptable or should LilyPond
> remain "GUI-agnostic"?

That question does not make sense.  You don't describe "such a step", I
don't see what "concepts" are involved here, and there is no point in
not adding support code for particular applications.  One problem with
"GUI proponents" is that they more often than not are of the opinion "it
should work good on Windows, let the rest be d***ed", and it is the
position of the GNU project _not_ to introduce material that promotes
the use of proprietary platforms over free ones.

Another problem is that LilyPond has a usage philosophy and workflow
that strongly penalizes manual tweaks.  Graphically/manually oriented
workflows detract from the importance of getting good default
typesetting.

-- 
David Kastrup